POVERTY
of organic conception and unintelligence of the deeper facts of our
environment are the inherent vices I have hitherto imputed to the Congress
and the burgess-body of which it is the political nucleus. But I have
not done enough when I have done that. Perversion or error in the philosophy
of our aim does indeed point to a serious defect of the political reason,
but it is not incompatible with a nearer apprehension and happier management
of surface facts; and if we had been so far apprehensive and dexterous,
that would have been an output of native directness and force on which
we might reasonably felicitate ourselves. For directness and force are
an inalienable ancestral inheritance handed down by vigorous forefathers,
and where they are, the political reason which comes of liberal culture
and ancient experience, may be waited for with a certain patient hopefulness.
But it is to be feared that our performance up to date does not give
room for so comforting an assurance. Is it not rather the fact that
our whole range of thought and action has been pervaded by a stamp of
unreality and helplessness, a straining after achievement for which
we have not the proper stamina and an entire misconception of facts
as well as of natural laws ? To be convinced of this we have only to
interrogate recent events, not confiding in their outward face as the
shallow and self-contented do, but getting to the heart of them, making
sure of their hidden secret, their deeper reality. Indeed it will not
hurt any of us to put out of sight for a moment those vain and fantastic
chimeras about Simon de Montfort and the gradual evolution of an Indian
Parliament, with which certain politicians are fond of amusing us, and
look things straight in the face. We must resolutely hold fast to the
primary fact that right and effective action can only ensue upon a right
understanding of ourselves in relation to our environment. For by reflection
or instinct to get a clear insight into our position and by dexterity
to make the most of it, that is the whole secret of politics, and that
is just what we have failed to do. Let us see whether we cannot get
some adequate sense of what our position really is: after that we shall
be more in the way to hit closely the exact point at which we have failed.
Whatever
theatrical attitude it may suit our vanity to adopt, we are not, as
we pretend to be, the embodiment of the country's power, intelligence
and worth: neither are we disinterested patriots striving in all purity
and unselfishness towards an issue irreproachable before God. These
are absurd pretensions which only detract from the moral height of our
nature and can serve no great or serious end. We may gain a poor and
evanescent advantage by this sort of hypocrisy, but we lose in candour
and clearness of intellect, we lose in sincerity which is another name
for strength. If we would only indulge less our bias towards moral ostentation
and care more to train ourselves in a healthy robustness and simple
candour, it would really advantage us not only in character, but in
power; and it would have this good effect, that we should no longer
throw dust into our own eyes; we should be better fitted to see ourselves
as a critic of human society would see us, better able to get that clear
insight into our own position, which is one condition of genuine success.
No, we are not and cannot be a body of disinterested patriots. Life
being, as science tells us, an affirmation of one's self, any aggregate
mass of humanity must inevitably strive to emerge and affirm its own
essence, must by the law of its own nature aspire towards life, aspire
towards expansion, aspire towards perfecting of its potential strength
in the free air of political recognition and the full light of political
predominance. That is just what has been happening in India. In us the
Indian burgess or middle class emerges from obscurity, perhaps from
nothingness, and strives between a strong and unfeeling bureaucracy
and an inert and imbecile proletariate to possess itself of rank, consideration
and power. Against that striving it is futile to protest; one might
as well quarrel with the law of gravitation; but though our striving
must be inherently selfish, we can at least make some small effort to
keep it as little selfish as possible, to make it, as far as may be,
run in harness with the grand central interests of the nation at large.
So much at least those of us who have a broad human affection for our
country as distinct from ourselves, have a right to expect.
Thus emergent, thus ambitious, it was our business by whatever circumstances
we were environed, to seize hold of those circumstances and make ourselves
masters of them. The initial difficulties were great. A young and just
emergent body, without experience of government, without experience
even of resistance to government, consequently without inherited tact,
needs a teacher or a Messiah to initiate it in the art of politics.
In England the burgess was taught almost insensibly by the nobility;
in France he found a Messiah in the great Napoleon. We had no Napoleon,
but we had a nobility. Europeans, when the spirit moves them to brag
of their superiority over us Asiatics, are in the habit of saying that
the West is progressive, the East stationary. That is a little too comprehensive.
England and France are no doubt eminently progressive but there are
other countries of Europe which have not been equally forward. America
is a democratic country which has not progressed: Russia is a despotic
country which has not progressed: in Italy, Spain, Germany even progress
has been factitious and slow. Nevertheless, though the vulgar wording
of the boast may be loose and careless, yet it does not express a very
real superiority. The nations of the West are not all progressive, true;
but they are all in that state which is the first condition of progress,
a state, I mean, of fluidity, but of fluidity within limits, fluidity
on a stable and normal basis. If no spirit of thought or emotion moves
on the face of the waters, they become as foul and stagnant as in the
most conservative parts of Asia, but a very slight wind will set them
flowing. In most Asiatic countries,—I do not speak of India—one
might almost imagine a hurricane blowing without any perceptible effect.
Accordingly in Europe the transition of power from the noble to the
burgess has been natural and inevitable. In India, just as naturally
and inevitably, the administration remained with the noble. The old
Hindu mechanism of society and government certainly did prescribe limits,
certainly had a basis that was stable and normal; but it was too rigid,
too stationary : it bound down the burgess and held him in his place
by an iron weight of custom and religious ordinance. The regime that
overthrew and succeeded it, the Mussulman regime, was mediaeval in character,
fluid certainly, indeed in a perpetual state of flux, but never able
to shake off the curse of instability, never in a position to prescribe
limits, never stable, never normal. In such a society the qualities
which make for survival, are valour, dexterity, initiative, swiftness,
a robust immorality, qualities native to an aristocracy and to nations
moulded by an aristocracy, native also to certain races, but even in
those nations, even in those races, alien to the ordinary spirit of
the burgess. His ponderous movements, his fumbling, his cold timidity,
his decent scrupulousness have been fatal to his pretensions, at times
inimical to his existence. Accordingly in India he has been submerged,
scarcely existent. Great affairs and the high qualities they nourish
have rested in the hand of the noble. We had then our nobility, our
class trained and experienced in government and affairs: but to them
unhappily we could not possibly look for guidance or even for co-operation.
At the period of our emergence they were lethargic, effete, moribund,
partially sunk in themselves; and even if any of the old energy had
survived their fall, the world in which they moved was too new and strange,
the transition to it had been too sudden and confounding to admit of
their assimilating themselves so as to move with ease and success under
novel conditions. The old nobility was quite as helpless from decay
and dotage, as we from youthful inexperience. It was foreign energy
that had pushed aside the old outworn machinery, it was an alien government
that had by policy and self-will hurried us into a new and quite unfamiliar
world. Would that government, politic and self-willed as it was, help
us to an activity that might, nay, that must turn eventually to their
personal detriment? Certainly they had the power but quite as certainly
they had not the will. No doubt Anglo-Indians have very little right
to speak of us as bitterly as they are in the habit of doing. By setting
themselves to compel our social elements into a state of fluidity, and
for that purpose not only of putting in motion organic forces but bringing
direct pressure to bear, by strictly enforcing system and order so as
to lay down fixed limits and a normal basis, within which the fluid
elements might settle into new forms, they in fact made themselves responsible
for us and lost the right to blame anyone but themselves for what might
ensue. They are in the unlucky position of responsibility for a state
of things which they abhor and certainly had no intention of bringing
about. The force which they had in mind to construct was a body of grave,
loyal and conservative citizens, educated but without ideas, a body
created by and having a stake in the present order, and therefore attached
to its continuance, a power in the land certainly, but a power for order,
for permanence, not a power for disturbance and unrest. In such an enterprise
they were bound to fail and they failed egregiously. Sir Edwin Arnold
when he found out that it was a grievous mistake to occidentalise us,
forgot, no doubt, for the moment his role as the preacher and poetaster
of self-abnegation, and spoke as an ordinary mundane being, the prophet
of a worldly and selfish class: but if we accept his words in that sense,
there can be no doubt that he was perfectly right. Anglo-Indians had
never seriously brought themselves to believe that we are in blood and
disposition a genuine Aryan community. They chose to regard our history
as a jungle of meaningless facts, and could not understand that we were
not malleable dead matter, but men with Occidental impulses in our blood,
not virgin material to be wrought into any shape they preferred, but
animate beings with a principle of life in us and certain, if subjected
to the same causes, placed in the same light and air as European communities,
to exhibit effects precisely similar and shape ourselves rather than
be shaped. They proposed to construct a tank for their own service and
comfort; they did not know that they were breaking up the fountains
of the great deep. There, stated shortly, is the whole sense of their
policy and conduct. The habit, set in vogue by rhetoricians of Macaulay's
type, of making large professions of benevolence invested with an air
of high grandiosity, has become so much a second nature with them, that
I will not ask if they are sincere when they make them: but it is a
rhetorical habit and nothing more. We who are not interested in keeping
up the fiction, may just as well pierce through it to the fact. If they
had seen things as they really are, they would have been wisely inactive:
but they wanted a submissive and attached population, and they thought
they had hit on the best way of getting what they wanted. In this confidence,
if there was a great deal of delusion, there was also something of truth.
But we must not be surprised or indignant if the Anglo-Indians, when
they saw their confidence so rudely dashed and themselves confronted,
not with submission and attachment but with a body eager, pushing, recriminative,
pushing for recognition, pushing for power, covetous above all of that
authority which they had come to regard as their private and peculiar
possession,—there is no cause for surprise or resentment, if they
cared little for the grain of success in their bushelful of failure,
and regarded us with those feelings of alarm, distrust and hatred which
Frankenstein experienced when having hoped to make a man, he saw a monster.
Their conduct was too natural to be censured. I do not say that magnanimity
would not have been better, more dignified, more politic. But who expects
magnanimity from bureaucracy? The old nobility then were almost extinct
and had moreover no power to help us: the bureaucracy had not the will.
Yet it was from their ranks that the Messiah came.
Indu
Prakash, February 5, 1894
- Sri Aurobindo
